Jump to content

Talk:Silent Hill (video game)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Console

"a survival horror video game for the Nintendo Gamecube?" I don't recall this ever being on the GC, and if it was, its home system was the Playstation, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not really sure where this is coming from, or if it's accurate.

Sounds like they mistook Silent Hill for the GameCube remake of Resident Evil.--FifthCylon (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Setting

Could someone with the book of lost memories find the page and citation for Silent Hill being set in the 1980's? I lent my copy to a friend and I can't remember which section it's in 70.75.169.248 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


Here is a link to the book.

http://www.translatedmemories.com/book.html


(talk)

PC port

Wasn't this ported to PC? I can't find any sources, well, I didn't really look, but still, I saw on a website that it was ported to PC.--FifthCylon (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sequels are on PC, but not the first one. --Mika1h (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference material

While digging through the online print archive, I located the following preview material for this game:

One or more print reviews for this game may also be found in the archive. For your convenience, I've linked them here:

Hope these help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

First, the map: I'm not buying its usefulness in this article.

Second, the SM pic. If we're going to have one it should be more to show the differences between that game and this one.

This will come up in GA, so we should probably deal with it now. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In particular, may I recommend this to replace the latter? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. The map really has no place in this article, so it ought to go. The second image I'm not too sure about. The one currently in the article has a gigantic caption and might incorporates original research. (I've played SHSM a few times before and I have never seen it stated in the game that the monsters kill Harry by absorbing his body heat. If anything, it could be like in Rule of Rose where the monsters simply frighten the protagonist though touching him/her, causing him/her to faint and "die".) However, the icy, no-combat Otherworld was a huge difference from the blood-and-rust one of the rest of the series (for me anyway). Hmmm. (Nice replacement for the Akira Yamaoka picture, by the way. That green one was absolutely hideous.) Kaguya-chan (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Our best option would probably be to find a new gameplay picture and a picture of a similar scene in SM like Resident Evil (video game). --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking of having a side-by-side comparison of the two Otherworlds. Kaguya-chan (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Team Silent

The information about the development team name being unofficial was added to the article without a reference and is contradicted by reliable sources. The collective staff of the games calls itself Team Silent in more than just one trailer, an interview with Akira Yamaoka in the December 2006 issue of Famitsu, and staff from Konami and the media refers to it as such on numerous occasions. Even if it originated from the fanbase (which is unsourced speculation), the name is officially recognized and used. Prime Blue (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article review

Currently, the review looks like a quick fail. Instead of going through with that, I'll address some points right away.

  • Remove words that promote a point of view (e.g. "mysterious" in "mysterious town of the same name", "inevitable", or the word "poor" throughout the article).
  • "%" should be "percent" in prose.
  • There are some weird wordings (e.g. "Dr. Michael Kaufmann, a doctor") that should be removed.
  • Judging from the "-ize" verbs, the article uses American English. Check for and correct instances of British English (e.g. "catalogue").
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs, for example in the development and releases sections.
  • Silent Hill needs to be italicized if it refers to the series or one of the games (see lead, for example).
  • The plot section is way too long, 700 words is the maximum for a game with an average-length story. The plot summary should just summarize the plot, not include every scene. Look here for some tips. You should start by cutting information irrelevant to the overall plot (e.g. "sport utility vehicle", "Cybil has come from the nearby town of Brahms to investigate a recent loss of phone and radio communications in Silent Hill.").
  • Reference formatting is inconsistent. For example, 36 and 37 are just plain URLs. The {{cite video game}} templates should have the in-game quotes in the "|quote=" field.
  • Reference 41 is a dead link (use this link instead), there might be more: These should be fixed, for example with archived versions.
  • The lead section is not an accurate summary of the individual sections of the article, and some of it was copied and pasted from the plot section.
  • There is still room for expansion in the development section. The Book of Lost Memories could contain more information than just the origin of the character names, and there are many interviews with Yamaoka that probably detail the production.
  • There are some unsourced statements. I have marked these with {{Citation needed}} templates. Try to find reliable sources for those or remove these sentences.

That's it for the beginning. This will require a substantial amount of work, but the article will have better chances when the review actually starts. Prime Blue (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think the concerns have been fixed now. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a random comment, in the references, ref. #3's accessdate is not consistent with the format of the rest of the references. I think i'll become the reviewer tomorrow (given I don't have much homework as I am only skimming articles tonight And if no other user beats me to it). Just giving you a heads up. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure one week will be enough for the editors to polish the article if you are going to put the review on-hold, as some areas still look pretty weak for a good article candidate. Plot needs to be cut down to the essentials, development expanded (finding sources for this will probably be the most work), and the pretty one-sided reception section could be more diverse and focused on how the individual aspects of the game were received by different critics (using GameSpot, IGN, GamePro and the three other reviews JimmyBlackwing posted above). I wouldn't pass it in its current state, but I also don't have the time to review the article fully at the moment, so I would appreciate it if you addressed the stuff I mentioned above. Prime Blue (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I was going to review the article too. But if Subzerosmokerain does it first I'll gladly help with copy editing. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

PSN PAL removal

I found two postings of the same article, but they don't look too good. Here's the apparent primary source. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
So is the community leader "MusterBuster" part of the staff? Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
He is a co-author of the PlayStation Blog Europe, so yes, he works for Sony. The forum message from him is not the best source (if you use it, point directly to the post), but given that it is not controversial information, a primary source, and no other sources exist, it is acceptable for a GA. If a better substitute comes up, though, it should be replaced. Prime Blue (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Some of Kaguya-chan's edits were good but she also changed some phrases and verbs into others that are grammatically incorrect. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Once the rewrite is complete, the article will be in need of a good copy editor looking over it, anyway. For the moment, I would concentrate on resolving the remaining problems. Prime Blue (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I corrected these phrases and verbs and the plot is now no more than 700 words. I added only a few omitted important things to the plot. Do you think it has better chances now for becoming a GA? Golden Sugarplum (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Examining the plot section with the word count feature of Microsoft Word gives 890 words. There is still room for cutting down, for example the WP:GAMEGUIDE statement "On the way to the lake, the player determines Kaufmann's fate —and the game's ending— by choosing whether to assist him in the town's resort area;", or meaningless stuff like "Harry views some "flashbacks" in Nowhere". As the game has several endings that have to be explained, I think keeping it strictly within the 700-word-limit is not necessary – if the summary includes only essential plot points, that is. Some of the other problems addressed above still exist, too, for example some POV-tone statements and the missing production information in the development section. Prime Blue (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Silent Hill (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    First issue I have seen, is in this sentence, "He eventually meets Dahlia Gillespie, the owner of an antiques store in Silent Hill, who gives him an unusual item, the "Flauros", and cryptic warnings about the near future", the part about calling the item "unusual" and calling the warnings "cryptic" seems to violate WP:NPOV. Reword the info. about the Flauros and perhaps paraphrasing what the purpose is and remove the word "cryptic" entirely. There is a disambiguation link please specify the person you want to link to. I can't really see any outstanding prose or format issues, if there are subtle ones, I cannot find them. So it Passes this entire section.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The "endings" paragraph is devoid of references and has nothing to back up the wary statements in it. You can use {{Cite video game}} to cite it. Other than that, the references in the article check out to me. And no OR appears, except for some confusing wording in the plot section but that's more of a miscommunication rather than OR.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Gameplay section is GA passable. Development looks a bit skimpy, for a game like Silent Hill I would believe you could get more about initial development rather than inspiration and censorship. I don't have any ideas on how to expand on it, i'll get back to you on it but for now i'm a bit wary on passing the article.EDIT: Development is okay now after a large contribution by prime blue. Section is now passable. Also, plot seems to be pretty overwighted, it's understandable because of the multiple endings and how different the story can play out based on decisions during the story but it looks to violate WP:GAMEGUIDE with so many references to what decisions can be made. It needs to be trimmed. Trimmed to sufficiency. Additionally, in Reception, I only have story and gameplay based aspects reception (which is completely fine) but I don't see anything by a Japanese site, how the country of origin received it. Try using Dengeki and Famitsu and try to add new reception by them, also I see you haven't tried 1UP.com, I saw a scariest games ever listing with Silent Hill on it. Additionally to that, you should add a short blurb about the overall Reception to Shattered Origins in its Subsection, only a sentence along the lines of "The reimagining was met with mixed reviews, criticized for its lack of combat but praised for its musical score" however it does not need to be worded like that. Never mind, I reread the article, and I'll rescind these statements, it looks fine as it is. The reception is suitable for an article of this size, i've completely forgotten to take into account that the title is from 1999. As far as i'm concerned(and as i've compared to other good articles) it's broad and focused enough.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I'd be nitpicking to try and quantify how far biased the article could be. By my judgement, it is neutral for WP policy.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No Edit Wars recently, Stability Passes
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    This is fine.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am reviewing this currently as I am reading it thoroughly to familiarize myself with it. Comments will come a bit later. Here come's the finale, i'm really only wary to pass because of the lack of references in the plot section but the rest of the article is suitable for GA, once some Cite video game references are up, this will pass.

I'll have to dissent on some criteria passes:

  • Reception overgeneralizes the topic and mostly just promotes one view, neglecting the number and diversity of the accessible reviews (those being GamePro, Game Revolution, GameSpot, IGN, Next Generation Magazine, Game Informer and GameFan) – for comparison, see the reception sections of other GAs from that era.
  • When I went over the plot section again, I noticed that it is still about 200 words over the limit and gives attention to unnecessary details, while some allegedly sources sentences are not backed up by in-game comments but rather interpretations on the storyline.
  • Also, there are still sources that can be worked into the development section, which is still a bit lackluster given the amount of information and the fact that this is the first game in a whole series.
  • Furthermore, I would group Play Novel: Silent Hill (this is the title, not the other way around) with adaptions since it is not any more a release of the game than Shattered Memories or the film, then merge releases at the bottom of the general development comments.
  • Lastly, the article needs a good copy-edit to correct awkward wordings and grammatical errors. Prime Blue (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd, 4rth and 5th issues have been dealt with (you said it's ok if there are more than 700 words, since there are multiple endings; could you count the words again with Word?). Golden Sugarplum (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Plot is currently at 867 words. As I said, it does not have to be strictly within the 700 words limits, but only if all that is there is actually essential to the plot. There is still a lot of random trivia that does not enhance understanding of the plot (such as "where it is snowing out of season", "and warnings about the near future", "who is as bewildered as Harry about their circumstances" etc.), while important plot points are neglected: For example, Kaufmann is introduced in great detail to the summary, but his role in the conspiracy is never explained. Also, there is a big problem with unsourced statements, prevalent in wordings such as "where he was brought by Cybil Bennett" (it is not stated how Harry got to the café) and "the owner of a store in Silent Hill" (Dahlia is not said to be the owner of the shop, as far as I remember). Prime Blue (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed "and warnings about the near future", "who is as bewildered as Harry about their circumstances", "where he was brought by Cybil Bennett". The sentence "where it is snowing out of season" helps readers built an image of the town's condition (the snow could be included in gameplay as a factor that hinders the player's visibility, together with the fog and the darkness). The sentence "the owner of a store in Silent Hill" is a fact. I own the game and its manual says, among other info like characters' ages, that Dahlia's the owner of the antiques store, which is named "Green Lion" and is located in the business district of Silent Hill. We can find a reference to cite this sentence and others that confirm Kaufmann was part of the scheme. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) This source you posted before can be used for the endings part (http://www.translatedmemories.com/bookpgs/Pg28-29SH1Ending.jpg). I don't know how to do the process to put it up, so you should do it like before. The article can now be a GA. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Two things, even though i'm the reviewer I agree with a lot of Prime Blue said (although I never saw it in his perspective) he does bring up good points. Additionally, the joke ending sentence is still not referenced so that part wouldn't pass by my standards. But I also defer to Prime Blue to opine on pass or fail since he brought up the new points. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As the reviewer, i'll end this on a positive note as the issues i've listed have been fixed. As far as i'm concerned, this article is GA material. Any and all interested editors, if you wish to further improve the article look to Prime Blue's comments above so that you may have an easy time at FAC and have not the issues arise again to impede its FA Status. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

References for development section

I found some additional references to use for expanding the development section, this and probably this. I've dug these up after a few minutes, so I'm almost sure there are still more interviews with the development team. Prime Blue (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the liner notes for the song "Esperándote" by Rika Muranaka (you need a VGMdb account to see the scan). I guess some of that can be worked into the article as well (that it was recorded on-site in Argentina, that Muranaka had to rewrite the song to fit the translated lyrics). And this is an interview with Yamaoka on the sound of the game. Bet there's a lot more out there (probably even magazine interviews from back then?). Prime Blue (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A word on the plot description

The plot section states that ″Harry dreams of regaining consciousness". It's been a while since I played this game but as far as I remember the notion that the entire affair is a dream is an interpretation of one of the possible endings. Surely this is not enough to make such a claim an undisputed fact... Almogo (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is one such ending (the Bad ending), in which Harry is shown dead in his car and it appears that his adventure in the town was a dream or something, but the canonical, "correct" ending is the Good + ending. This can be verified by the fact that Heather, who is the baby given to Harry by Alessa in the Good + and Good endings, appears in Silent Hill 3. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no confirmation that it was the Good+ ending, but it's definitely either that ending or just the plain old Good ending. Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Book of Lost Memories, the "good" ending is described as the orthodox ending that ties into the third game. But this has little to do with the problem Almogo raised. The sentence "While unconscious, Harry dreams of regaining consciousness, finding Cheryl missing and then searching the deserted, foggy town, where it is snowing out of season, for her." makes no sense when the other endings are counted. Similarly, the plot is still about two hundred words above the limit, with one fourth spent on describing how characters switch locations, or unnecessary details like "restoring her charred skin and changing her outfit". Also, there are interpretations on the storyline which are not proven by the game itself: For example, "Alessa survived the ritual because her status as the deity's "vessel" rendered her immortal." is not at all what the quote says. Prime Blue (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Good ending is canonical. The Bad ending is the only one in which Harry is dead and all the events appear to be a delusion. In all the other endings Harry is alive, so the sentence "While unconscious...for her" makes sense if these endings are counted, so I see no reason for it to be deleted if this is what you suggest. The sentence "Alessa survived...immortal" can be verified by the Book of Lost Memories (http://www.translatedmemories.com/bookpgs/Pg88-89.jpg). The quote (by "quote" you mean reference, right?) doesn't say that, but this can easily be fixed by making the link I gave a reference (if it's acceptable for a reference, since it's a photo). If you think the plot is too long, I'll trim it some more. I was thinking lately that we should make an article for Harry (I suppose he's notable now that he's the main protagonist of 2 games: Silent Hill and Shattered Memories) and one for Heather when the second Silent Hill movie is released (main protagonist of a game and a film). Golden Sugarplum (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the dream bit in the "While unconscious...for her" sentence is that, firstly, there is no hard evidence in the game for the first portion being dreamed up by Harry, secondly, that it is confusing to those who did not play the game and, lastly, that it is irrelevant to the overall plot – explaining that his daughter is missing and that he searches for her in the town will be sufficient. If you are going to use the Book of Lost Memories page as a reference for the "Alessa survived...immortal" sentence, just use the format already established for that source in the article (copy, paste, change page numbers accordingly). About individual character articles: they need to fulfill the notability criteria for fiction, meaning that the articles have to include information beyond plot summaries, such as conception and critical reception. See articles like Master Chief (Halo) and Troy McClure to get an idea of what should be there. Prime Blue (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There is rock-hard evidence in the game that this was a dream (see this video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HozLmPIT6UY; there are many other videos on YouTube that confirm that it was a dream). Even if it's confusing for people who didn't play the game, it's a fact. Anyway, we can omit it if you like. Which is the format established for the source in the article (I have a little trouble with this process you said and don't know if I can do it myself)? About the character articles, don't worry, I know the notability criteria and what needs to be included. I guess at least Harry is notable enough (all the main protagonists of Resident Evil have their articles and most of them have been the main protagonist of 2 games). Heather maybe not, since being in 1 game maybe isn't enough. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

All I see there is Harry wondering himself if he was dreaming – if even the protagonist is unsure, we probably shouldn't make judgments (especially since he has to get to the café somehow, too), but again, not notable to the plot summary anyway. I changed this sentence and added the proper source for the other one. Prime Blue (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This proves that I was correct about the first part being a dream: http://www.translatedmemories.com/bookpgs/Pg96-97.jpg. I read this a long time ago, but so far couldn't remember I had read it the Book of Lost Memories. Now someone must put it up because I don't know how to do it. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your source says ..the protagonist is just about to awaken from a bad dream. I don't see how you can interpret that as meaning that the entire game, which occurs after the protagonist has awakened is a dream. Since the wording on this is somewhat unclear (and in fact doesn't even support the claim), and considering the fact that this is a fan translation, I don't think it can be used as a source and that claim should be removed. Almogo (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be better to give more attention to the severely lacking reception section instead of adding more confusing trivia to the lengthy and unbalanced plot summary. Prime Blue (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
To Almogo: I suppose you believe that it's being stated that the entire game is a dream because the fact that he wakes up in the cafe is stated in an unclear way, so it looks like he dreamed of waking up in the cafe and all the rest up to the game's end. Am I correct? The source says that the first game begins with a nightmare. What other part in the beginning could the source be referring to as a nightmare, apart from the short one where Harry regains consciousness after the crash, chases the figure and enters the Otherworld? The translation's accuracy can be checked by reading the prototype. According to this logic that it should not be trusted since it's fan-written, all the included links from Translated Memories should be deleted, which are many, important and, as far as I know, irreplaceable, since there isn't an official translation from Konami. If you can find a translation that is official then we'll replace the current ones.
I reread the section and now I see that I didn't understand the claim correctly at first. I thought it was implying that the entire game is a dream but you are only talking about the first section. That's a more reasonable claim and it makes the fan translation more logical. Almogo (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's ok.:) Glad this has been solved. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
To Prime Blue: Yes, we should expand the reception section but I don't think the statement that the plot's first part is a dream is trivia that should be removed. If this statement is removed then it will look like the first part is reality, which is false, as I showed with that source. And why confusing? Why you think the plot section is unbalanced? Golden Sugarplum (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That whole dream, as mentioned before, is a trivial five-minute part of the game that is irrelevant to the overall plot and confusing to readers unaware of the overall story – introducing the Otherworld as part of a dream and then using it throughout the article is particularly bad. I have repeatedly stressed the problems the plot section suffers from on this talk page and in the GA review, and explained why it is unbalanced. Prime Blue (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought about what you said just above. Almost all of what you said is correct, but the dream itself is not trivia. The dream's sequence (Harry finding Cheryl disappearing, the town's condition and his entry into the Otherworld) is trivia if it's mentioned in the dream's section as the things that Harry saw in the dream. This way, yes, it's unecessary detail. The dream could be summarized in a phrase. Maybe something like this: "After having a nightmare while unconscious, Harry regains consciousness in a cafe in Silent Hill, where he meets Cybil Bennett, a police officer, and realizes that Cheryl is missing, the town is deserted and foggy and that it is snowing out of season. Having splitted with Cybil and eventually slipping in and out of the Otherworld, a dilapidated version of the town obscured by darkness, Harry meets Dahlia Gillespie...". Is this better? Harry first entered (in real life) the Otherworld while at Midwich elementary school, which he went to after waking up in the cafe. Kaufmann's alliance with Dahlia would only take a few words to explain and I found sources from the Book of Lost Memories so it's easy to take care of. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on the plot section...I agree with Prime Blue (talk · contribs). At its core, the plot section is just a summary, and as such, should summarize, which often means leaving out all the fun details that are unimportant to the plot. As it currently is, the plot needs a trim for wordiness and unimportant details (that Dahlia owned a store for example—which would go very nicely on the SH character page(s), but seems like trivia here). I like the changes discussed above by Golden Sugarplum (talk · contribs), and would suggest even further changes:
After having a nightmare while unconscious, Harry regains consciousness in a cafe in Silent Hill[—where it is snowing out of season, foggy, and generally deserted—and] meets Cybil Bennett, a police officer[;] [he] realizes that Cheryl is missing. Having split with Cybil and eventually slipping in and out of the Otherworld, a dilapidated version of the town obscured by darkness, Harry meets Dahlia Gillespie...
Granted, this version is still rough, but I think it's a step in the right direction, and will happily explain the reasoning behind those particular changes, if I have to. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a suggestion: the article and particularly the "plot" section are full of reference links that appear to be huge sections of dialogue taken from the game. I am not sure if this is the best source in all cases, and it makes the article a nightmare to edit, but I don't feel familiar enough with the game to selectively edit these links. If someone else could, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.112.228.231 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • We use game quotes as a primary source for the game. These can appear on FAs too (for example, see Final Fantasy XIII-2#Story, which includes quotes from the game]]).

Another word on plot description

Hi all, I've never played Silent Hill; just came here after hearing buzz about the sequel movie. I wanted to know what happened in the first game, so I could read a recap of the third game and know what the movie might be about. Anyway, from the perspective of someone who hasn't played the game, the plot description is incoherent. Honestly; no idea what happens. There are several unintroduced references to "the deity" and "the cult"--don't know what those are. Apparently the game changes significantly if you do or don't save the cop and doctor, but the summary never explains what happens to them or how you save them. I'd try to fix it myself, but this goes beyond grammar clarity (though the grammar and syntax are horrible); there's a lot of assumed knowledge on behalf of the reader. Anyway, just some feedback if anyone who knows the game well and can write decently wants to take a stab. 24.171.121.177 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)MOB

The lead section says that Harry stumbles upon a ritual by a cult to resurrect a deity worshipped by the latter, so the mentions are not unintroduced; the term "cult" links to its respective article, so that unfamiliar readers can understand the word's meaning. Explanations for the 2 characters' fates are provided (if an ending doesn't feature a character, it means that the character wasn't saved previously by Harry from a life-threatening situation, as the article already explains): Cybil is either saved from the parasite by Harry or killed by him and then her fate is either left uncertain in the "bad +" ending, as the cited source Lost Memories does not make clear what happens to her after she convinces Harry to escape, or she is revealed to escape with Harry and the baby in the "good +" ending. Kaufmann is either rescued from a monster by Harry or left to its mercy by the latter and is then prevented from fleeing from the alternate dimension by a transformed Lisa in the "good" and "good +" endings, with his ultimate fate as well as Lisa's substance as a transformed being not clarified. In the few instances where a murky aspect is not illuminated, it's not the editors' fault; I've read in a reliable source which I don't recall now that the plot is deliberately made complex by the developers and occasionally veiled in uncertainty, to help build atmosphere.
Detailing how exactly Cybil and Kaufmann can be saved would be an excessive detail not helping the understanding of the plot and extending the word count, which should be as minimal as possible because this is a summary of the plot. Such details are suitable for "List of SH1, SH2, and SH3 characters". Is the grammar and syntax of the section really awful? Could you give some examples to help me understand better? Hula Hup (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the lead section says it; it is a central point of the plot, so it should be covered in the plot summary. The word "cult" links to wikipedia's definition of the word "cult," not to an explanation of the fictional cult in Silent Hill. After re-reading the plot summary for a third time, I think I caught the instances where those people can be saved, but it is far from immediately clear on a first reading. The plot being ambiguous in the game isn't reason for the plot summary to be vague and confusing; if parts of the plot are deliberately ambiguous for effect, the plot summary should say "So-and-So's motivations are left ambiguous," or whatever. As far as the concerns about space, many other video game articles on wikipedia, including many with higher ratings than this one, have plot summaries that are longer.
It should only require a glance at the summary to see the poor wording, but I'll break down a few of the sentences if you like. Every sentence can be trimmed and clarified, but the second paragraph is particularly bad, grammatically and content-wise.
1. "Harry encounters a symbol marked throughout Silent Hill, said by Dahlia to enable the Otherworld to take over the town if its multiplication continues." The word "marked" is useless here, "Silent Hill, said by Dahlia" is a misplaced modifier because Dahlia is referring to the symbol, not Silent Hill, and the attrocious construction of ", said [to the end of the sentence]" is, like, double passive voice. Try this: "Throughout Silent Hill, Harry encounters a symbol, which Dahlia says will enable the Otherworld to take over if it continues to multiply." That's written in something approaching proper English, though it's still vague. This is the first reference to the Otherworld, and I have no idea what that is, nor do I know what it means for the Otherworld to "take over," nor does "multiply" seem like the best word choice, as it indicates a lack of agency, whereas these symbols seem to be put there by a thing/person (Alessa, I gather?). I suspect the game might never fully define the Otherworld, but, come on, it seems to be another of the primary points of the game, and the plot summary should offer some basic description and introduction of the concept rather than this offhand reference.
2. "Eventually, the player has an opportunity to save Kaufmann from a monster's attack and the Otherworld begins taking over the town." I guess this is the place where you make the decision that affects the game's outcome? "The player has an opportunity" doesn't make it fully clear that you are making a choice that changes the game's plot. Again, it is unclear what it means for the Otherworld to be "taking over the town," which might be more clear if we knew what the Otherworld was. This is the first reference to a monster, and it's probably worth introducing the fact that apparently there are monsters in this game. I'm guessing you probably fight, or at least encounter, monsters throughout the game, but I wouldn't know that from reading this.
3. The next one is the sort that drives English teachers to drink: "After being told by Dahlia that the girl from the road is a demon responsible for the symbol's duplication and urged by her to stop the child, because if he does not, Cheryl will die, Harry is attacked by Cybil, who is parasitized by a creature." I don't feel like individually listing every problem; it would take far too long. Here's one of several ways to edit it into coherence: "Dahlia tells Harry that the girl he saw on the road is a demon who has been putting up the evil symbol around town. She urges him to stop the child, claiming Cybil will die if he does not. Later on, Cybil, whose mind is controlled by a parasite, attacks Harry." "Duplicating" was certainly not the right verb, but I don't know that "putting up" is better, since the details of these symbols are fairly vague. Otherwise, this revision is at least grammatically coherent. It's unclear if the parasite is related to the monsters referred to earlier, or if the monsters are related to the Otherworld, so it's still quite vague. By the by, I did see that monsters and the Otherworld are mentioned once in the "Gameplay" section (though the Otherworld link only goes back to the Silent Hill franchise page), but that still doesn't justify their omission from the plot summary. These are defining features of the game, and the plot summary should introduce and define them to a reader as clearly as playing the game through would for a player.
4. "The player must choose whether to save her or kill her." It wouldn't hurt to add a dependent clause that just mentions this is one of the two choices that changes the ending.
Like I said, almost every sentence has problems like this. Explaining problems with just these few sentences has taken up too much space, though. Honestly, it seems like the whole thing should be scrapped and rewritten by someone with a grasp on both grammatical clarity and informative summary. I'd be happy to help, but, as I said, I don't really know what happens in the game.24.171.121.177 (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)MOB

..Hello, I would just like to chime in to agree. As someone who has not played the game, I can't make much sense of the plot based on the description. It needs a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.77.26 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Because of recent disruptive edits involving unsourced statements (possible original research) to the article's plot section, I requested for a comment. The problem failed to be resolved through discussion, as the disruptive edits continued despite multiple notifications. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The edits were not disruptive, and the discussion consisted of the above user politely threatening me. Golden has even admitted on my talk page to knowing that the statements are true, yet she is still doing everything in her power to ensure they are deleted, because no source is listed. In my eyes, that is vandalism. There are a lot of people around here who take pleasure in ruining articles by deleting every unsourced statement, regardless of whether or not it is true. Wikipedia may ask for sources, but it is foolish for every little thing to have to be sourced. As it is, the articles are hard to read, due to all the sources interrupting every few words or sentences, and they are nearly impossible to edit. You can barely tell what is part of the section and what is a reference, it's such a mess. I added important, true plot details. And they are confirmed in Lost Memories, the official guidebook for the series.Yomiel (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
What we have here is the very definition of an edit war. Now, I have no knowledge of this topic, so I can't give a third opinion, but I'd say your quarreling is blown out of proportion, so I've requested said opinion from others, so we'll see where this goes. But rest assured, this argument is somewhat frivolous, so you may both want to consider letting others edit the questionable areas and leave it at that. DarthBotto talk•cont 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, all I did was add a few words, and she went ballistic. I think she's overreacting to such a simple edit, especially when she admits to knowing the information I added was factual.Yomiel (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I will just say 2 things. Firstly, this was not a quarrel, but a disagreement. I would have never gotten involved in a fight, since I'm not that kind of person. And secondly, I ask anyone who intends to comment on this topic, before they do, to read the discussion I had with the other person involved at his/her talk page, so that they know exactly what has happened. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference of the debated material is silly and minor. Hospitalized vs Imprisoned. Although there are policies that say to keep things as the source says them, and not mince their words, if it is true, and better describes what is happening, then it should be kept. The bit saying that it "presumably had a hand in faking her death as well" is original research, and should not be in the article. Is the character actually being imprisoned by somebody, or are they just there getting medical help? Whatever is true should be in the article. If both are somehow true, and they are being imprisoned as they are hospitalized, then go by what the sources say. Because frankly, it it would be original research(again, not allowed) to say that somebody is holding them against their will, but them being hospitalized can be clearly said with no bias. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If there is an authoritative plot source on the nature of imprisonment/hospitalization, use it. If there is no such source, then pick a neutral phrase, i.e. "she was there" rather than "she was imprisoned/hospitalized there". Provide the facts, not interpretations that are open to doubt. Or, if there are any reliable sources that discuss this, provide both possibilities. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Following a consensus here and in the talk page of the other person involved (a total of 2 other users agreeing with me that there is original research), original research, which is also trivia (trivia is not allowed in the plot section), has been removed and the word "forced" has been put next to the word "hospitalization" to indicate imprisonment. This way, imprisonment is indicated without the article's statement changing the source's statement. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that Kaufman likely had a hand in faking Alessa's death is what official materials say-the same materials that say the other things I added. And I think that imprisonment is more accurate because she is being imprisoned. Forced hospitalization implies something a bit different.Yomiel (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yomiel, could you provide quote(s) here from the official material to back up your claim that Kaufman possibly faked Alessa's death? You continue to assert that the official sources confirm this, but do not provide any proof. If you can't point to a source that proves the possibility—something that says "Kaufman may have faked the death of that poor little girl Alessa", or something similar—then it becomes speculation, which has no place here. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I already game the name of the official source-Lost Memories, which is 99% correct. The books states that Alessa's dead body was found inside her burning home, but that Kaufman probably replaced the body, thus suggesting he was responsible for faked death.Yomiel (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have difficulty with dashes—which can be found under the edit summary box—and formatting. To reply to someone, put a ":" before your post. It makes the page much easier to read.
Regardless, it's still (currently unsourced) trivia—only a possibility—and has no place in the plot summary, which should not include what may have happened with such a minor detail. The plot's already complicated and wordy enough, and that would fit much better on the character page instead. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The matter of hospitalization vs imprisonment has been taken care of only partially. Disrupting editing continues, as most of the removed statements were restored (these statements were obviously added with good intentions both times), and the issue failed for a second time to be solved through discussion with the other person involved. This is a link to the diff page which shows the restored statements in detail: [1]. This is an overview of the problems:

  • restoration of the untrue statement that Dahlia burnt Alessa alive; the phrase "to burn someone alive" means to kill someone by exposing them to fire (i.e. incinerate them); Alessa wasn't killed by the fire, but survived because she became immortal due to the god being inside her
  • restoration of the ambiguous and trivial statement that Dahlia set the house on fire; the phrase "to set something on fire" doesn't clarify if it's done on purpose or accidentally, so it could be perceived as arson (i.e. deliberate setting of something on fire); it's unknown if it was done on purpose or accidentally, but, either way, the fact that the house burnt is trivia and doesn't enhance readers' understanding of the plot
  • restoration of the misleading statement that Alessa had been imprisoned in Alchemilla Hospital (it was previously stated twice, but one of the 2 statements hasn't been restored); The Book of Lost Memories (i.e. an official book by Konami with information about Silent Hill 1, 2 and 3) only says that she was hospitalized; she was indeed being imprisoned, but while she was hospitalized, so the phrase "forced hospitalization" is combining both without altering the source's meaning
  • restoration of the true but trivial statement that Kaufmann faked Alessa's death; Silent Hill: Origins and The Book of Lost Memories reveal that he indeed faked her death, but it's trivia and doesn't enhance reader's understanding of the plot

Kaguya, it's not trivia, but official information regarding the plot. And though they say probably, it's pretty obvious that is actually the case. Thus, yes, it should be in the article. As for you, Golden, all you've done is falsely accused me of disruptive editing. Meanwhile, you've deleted information just because you could, admitting that you knew it was true. People could use that same argument to utterly destroy every article on this site. As it is, most articles are so full of sources, reading and editing them is impossible, because you can't seperate the sources from the actual article. Alessa was imprisoned in that hospital and mistreated, in order to bring her other half back. That Dahlia was responsible for the house fire is hardly trivial and is a big part of the plot. Also, you can burn someone alive without killing them. And I don't know what you're talking about with the deleted sourches.Yomiel (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it's official doesn't mean it's important, it's official trivia. You can see if the accusation is false or not by reading the definition of disruptive editing in the link I gave in my previous comment. You find that reading and editing the articles is impossible because you are a new user, you'll get used to it in time. I deleted the now restored statements because they didn't comply with the rules. No other reason was behind this action. If one doesn't agree with Wikipedia's rules, I can't understand why they would edit it. I've read the whole Book of Lost Memories, but it doesn't say anywhere that Alessa was being mistreated in the hospital, nor does the game. It's also not stated in any of these two that the purpose of her imprisonment was to bring her other half back. According to the game, the purpose of the imprisonment was to make her "live a nightmare," in order for the god inside her to be "nurtured by that nightmare" (in SH3 there's a similar case, Claudia has Heather's father assassinated to fill Heather with hatred [and out of spite, too], in order for the god inside her to be nurtured by that hatred). The issue of bringing the other half back was taken care of by means of a spell, as the article says. We don't doubt the fact that Dahlia is responsible for the house fire. She is, either directly (arson) or indirectly (accident). The problem here is that the fact that the house burnt is trivia. Does it make a difference to Alessa's condition that the house burnt along with her? If you search for the definition of the phrase "to burn someone alive" in a dictionary or in the article "Death by burning," you will see that it means "to incinerate them." About the sources, you can see what I'm talking about by visiting the link [1] in my previous comment. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Burning someone alive is burning them while they are alive. There is no indication that they must die from this act. You deleted them even though you knew they were correct. That is vandalism. You are trying to twist the rules to your advantage, so you can get away with it. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you are VERY off. Alessa was kept under the influence of various drugs, unable to do anything without the other half of her soul. The point of it all was to make her give into the pain and finally call out to her other half, drawing her back to Silent Hill. And yes it is important that the house burned too.Yomiel (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick Question: Why the hell am I still seeing this debate? I thought it was decided that it would be better to take into consideration other peoples' opinions, as there has been input from others besides Yomiel and Golden Sugarplum. I'm not taking sides, which might be why I find this edit was so completely stupid, over something inconsequential. Consider what people have said and if you are too involved with this, let others edit those areas. DarthBotto talk•cont 23:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're still seeing it because she won't leave me alone. I agree that the edit shouldn't have caused all this. She herself even admits to knowing that the things I added were true, yet still repeatedly undid them because they weren't sourced. I consider that vandalism, and it's probably one of the reasons so many articles on here are impossible to read/edit, because of all the references mixed in. All I did was add two or so little pieces of info.Yomiel (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm a boy. Yomiel, why do you refer to me with the female pronoun? DarthBotto, it has been already mentioned by me that other peoples' opinions have been taken into account, as 2 other users agreed that original research is present (one agreed here and the other one at Yomiel's talk page) before I restored the correct version of the article. This is consensus and makes 3:1. Yomiel's restoration of the disruptive edits was not based on consensus. You can search this whole page and see that no agreement with Yomiel's opinion occured. User Blake said that if Alessa is imprisoned as she is hospitalized (which is what happens), then the source's wording should be kept (i.e. hospitalized). Apart from the original research, there is also trivia, which is not permitted in the plot section. The fact that this is a good article is an extra reason for it to follow the rules. I tried to reach a compromise by putting the word "forced" next to "hospitalization," but Yomiel did not and also acted on his/her own without taking into account the consensus. Considering that I follow the rules and did try to reach a compromise, I don't think it would be fair for me to refrain from editing the debated areas of the plot. This issue has been reported at Wikiquette alerts, so we can only wait. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you continue to lie? You know no one else agreed to these edits of yours, especially after seeing that they were true, which you knew all along. Alessa was kept in the hospital against her will, for illegal purposes. She was also mistreated and essentially tortured during her time there. That would not be called "hospitalization", but "imprisonment". And there is no trivia. Just because you view a certain detail as unimportant, doesn't mean that you're right.Yomiel (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop attacking. Please. Stop saying that I'm lying and such unfounded things that are only based on your personal opinion and not objective proof. You cannot know what people have in their minds neither you can make conclusions about strangers and express them like this. I've been absolutely civil up to now, I've shown great patience and comprehension and I even went a step back by including the word "forced" next to "hospitalization," in a try to reach a compromise, but you continue to insult and don't take a step back too. If one reads the discussions at your talk page between me and you and between you and Kaguya-chan they will see who is lying and your overall behavior towards me and her. You've already forced me to report this behavior at Wikiquette alerts. None agreed to these edits of mine? Blake said at this talk page: "If both are somehow true [i.e. hospitalized and imprisoned], and they are being imprisoned as they are hospitalized, then go by what the sources say." The source says "hospitalized," not "imprisoned." None of the article's sources uses the word "imprisoned." Kaguya-chan also agreed with me at your talk page and this can be checked by seeing your talk page's past version, as her comments have been deleted. About the issue of the trivia, Kaguya-chan again agreed with me that your edits contain trivia, which can also be checked by seeing your talk page's past version. They saw that your edits were true? Who exactly saw that your edits were true? None of the people (except Kaguya-chan) who commented here after my request for comment had knowledge of the game, according to them. I ask you to name the people who, according to you, saw that your edits were true. Put your last comment's last sentence the other way round. Just because you view a certain detail as important, doesn't mean that you're right. I also ask you to tell me the reason why you referred to me with the female pronoun. I never said I was a girl. I have asked you 2 favors in this comment. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The more you talk, the more it seems like you are just trolling. You've lied repeatedly and harassed me, as well as vandalised the articles. I've repeatedly asked you to stop messing with me, yet you refuse, and then you have the gall to act like the victim and make threats. You already admitted in various places to knowing that my edits were true, yet you removed them anyway. And now you're trying to deny that they were true and say you asked me to point out others? More lies from you. You act high and mighty, and it's getting on my nerves. And now this whole 'why did you refer to me as a female'? This is the internet. How was I supposed to know your gender? Honestly, you're just looking for something to harass me about. Enough. You need to stop.Yomiel (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The claims about me trolling, me lying, me harassing, me acting like the victim, me threatening, me acting high and mighty and all such stuff are just your personal opinion and they are not based on objective proof and criteria, and can very easily be contradicted by just checking our discussions at your talk page. I repeat that you don't know me, so you can't say whatever you want about me. I'm not denying that your edits are true. They are true, but, except me and Kaguya-chan, none else knew that at the time you made these edits (according to them, of course), so your statement that others knew at that time that your edits were true is untrue. Now about the female pronouns you used to refer to me, I know they were used because you didn't know my gender, it's not that I'm looking for something to harass you about, for God's sake. You could have just simply asked me what my gender was, not refer to me with a random one. I use he/she when I refer to you because I don't know yours, but I think Kaguya-chan said you're a girl. Anyways, I'm still waiting for a compromise. I did my part by including the word "forced" next to "hospitalization," now it's your turn. We should exclude the fact that the house was burnt, as it doesn't make any difference to Alessa's condition, and include it in Dahlia's paragraph at the "List of Silent Hill characters" article, which is the place to add trivia, and also exclude the fact that Kaufmann presumably faked Alessa's death and add it in Kaufmann's paragraph at the same article (The Book of Lost Memories can be used as a source for Kaufmann presumably faking the death, but there isn't a source for Dahlia setting the house on fire, but I'll try to find one). This way, both your edits will be here in Wikipedia and Silent Hill's article (which I remind is a good article) will be following the rules. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You just don't stop... No, it's not my personal opinion-it's what you are doing. You need to leave me alone and stop acting like you're better than everyone else. None of what you are saying is true. You admitted right after reverting my edits that you knew they were right, so you claiming that I was being untruthful about it is a lie. There is no need for a compromise here. You are picking a fight over something ridiculous. Just because you don't think these details are important, that doesn't mean that others agree. People playing the game come here to get more information at times, so why should we ommit stuff like that? Just leave it alone and move on.Yomiel (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How can you be so sure I'm acting like I'm better than everyone else? You don't know me. I'm trying to keep a good article by the rules. Since your edits created controversy, a compromise is neccessary, according to the rules and according to common sense. I've clarified in the past that this is not a fight (at least by my side), since I've been civil so far. I can see Kaguya-chan agreeing with me about the nature of these details. Stuff like that should be omitted because it is detail that doesn't enhance understanding of the plot. Does the fact that the house burnt along with Alessa make a difference to Alessa's condition? The house fire is, probably, not even a part of the ritual, it could just be a "side effect" caused by the candles, but even if it is part of it, it shouldn't be mentioned in the plot section, which must contain a summary of the plot and not excessive details. The same applies to Kaufmann probably faking Alessa's death. Does the fact that he faked her death make a difference to her condition? These should be mentioned in the "List of Silent Hill characters," which is the place for details like this. I made a similar mistake when we were editing the article during its assessment, I wrote in the plot section that Dahlia owned a shop in Silent Hill. This also didn't help readers understand the plot and occupied space from the already extra long plot section, but I listened to more experienced users and removed it. The details should be moved to the list. Cooperation is needed. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Because you ARE acting superior. You automatically assume you should be listened to above me and that I should do what you say. And over and over you threw how long you were a member in my face. The house fire was important enough to be included as part of the game's official prologue, so I think it's important enough for the article. You can't compare it to Dahlia owning the antique shop, though it would make sense to mention that if you mention the shop, given her importance as a character and what's found there. You shouldn't have listened to those other users. Alessa's death is also mentioned in said prologue. And the fact that Kaufmann-yet another major character-was behind it, is an important plot detail.Yomiel (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


Enough already

People, this has gone on way too long. Lets drop the stick and back slowly away from the dead horse. At this point, I don't care whether or not the whole Kaufmann nonsense is kept in the article or not; my only concern was that it was original research. Which it isn't. I understand Yomiel's concern that it is important to understanding the plot. Then again, I do understand Golden Sugarplum's worries about the word count and that it might be crowding the plot with details. So, how about we stop arguing in circles and ask for a copy-edit here instead? A lot of the repetitive parts can be cleaned up, particularly in the ending section, and the word count typically goes down as a result of more concise writing. We could also move up the Kaufmann bit to the third paragraph, where it flows more smoothly. (And if it was ever officially confirmed, it would be nice have a brief mention that Lisa and Alessa were both provided drugs by that scumbag. SH3 alludes to it briefly when Heather visits the sickroom...) Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Like I said, everything must be verified. If it is not completely obvious, then it is original research. For it to be included, it would have to be stated by a reliable source. If you can't supply a source, then you can't say that she was imprisoned. Please stop this non-sense. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And a source was provided. There's no reason to continue arguing at all.Yomiel (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kaguya-chan, this has indeed gone on way too long, but I've done multiple attempts to end it peacefully, with no response. Even the idea of compromise was rejected. If a copy-edit is asked at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, we won't be sure that the outcome satisfies all of us. I've suggested this compromise: moving the debated edits to "List of Silent Hill characters," the place for extensive details on the characters; I've put the word "forced" next to "hospitalization" to indicate confinement without changing the source's meaning, so if the bits about the house fire and the faked death are moved to "List of Silent characters," both this info will be in Wikipedia and the plot section won't contain trivia. I've found this source for the house fire and the faked death, which is probably the source Yomiel meant: http://www.translatedmemories.com/bookpgs/Pg08-09AlessasHistory.jpg. I believe this solution is satisfying for all and fair for all. Do you agree? Golden Sugarplum (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You've repeatedly undone my edits and insulted and threatened me on my talk page. You're reported me any my edits, and you've lied. You refuse to realize these things I added are not trivia, and you are now acting like you found this source, when I'm the one who told you about it in the first place.Yomiel (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion about this debate is open at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Silent_Hill_issues. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to soften things up by telling that it's my birthday today. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I have already requested a copyedit at the GoCE page and notified an uninvolved administrator to help resolve the situation on the project's talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' incident noticeboard discussion

Following the notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#Issues with disruptive editor, I've looked into this dispute and agree that Yomiel is edit warring against consensus to reintroduce inappropriate material into the article. Yomiel has now been warned that if he does so again he will be blocked. Feel free to remove the disputed material; if it can later be referenced to reliable secondary sources, it can be re-introduced (by Yomiel or other editors). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read ANY of the above conversation? I mean, this is insane. All your doing is feeing the egos of the editors who have waged a war against me over a few words. I was asked for a souce, and I provided one. What is the problem? Lost Memories is an OFFICIAL book released for Silent Hill. My edits regarding Dahlia being responsible for the house fire and Kaufmann's hand in Alessa's death are both right there in fine print, clear as day. Furthermore, both of these things are also revealed in the prequel game Silent Hill Origins.Yomiel (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, you are edit warring against the project's consensus. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're both unbelievable. The information was already sourced. Both by the extensive encyclopedia guidebook Lost Memories and the events of the prequel game Origins. You can even see a scan linked to a few paragraphs up. Several other editors have already acknowledged this, and even Golden has let it slip she knows my edits were factual. We agreed to the way the page was before Sjones removed everything. It should be proven by the fact that I wasn't even the one who made that edit with the compromised version. Now, thanks to two editors refusing to follow the rules and lying a lot to anyone who would listen, all we discussed was for nothing, and the article now lacks important plot information. I hope you're proud of yourselves. You've ruined the article and my reputation with your lies and bullying.Yomiel (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive comments struck out. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit underway

Hello, folks. I'm beginning a copyedit as requested at WP:GOCE. I never actually played this game, but I've been a video game addict for many years now. So maybe that will help. Anyway, I'll post comments here once I've done my copyedit. I assume this is headed toward FAC-land someday? Scartol • Tok 18:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to post the following comments! Kudos to everyone involved with this article — it's got a lot of great info. Because of my long absence, it's possible that some of these comments are no longer relevant. If so, I apologize again.
Good luck and of course let me know if you have any questions.
  • I recommend removing the subsection divisions in "Gameplay", "Development", and "Adaptations", since they're all single paragraphs.
  • This seems out of place in the "Gameplay" section: The objective of Silent Hill is to guide Harry Mason through the series' monster-filled alternate dimensions as he searches for his lost daughter. If you remove this, you should wikilink the first appearance of "Harry Mason" and then remove links in subsequent appearances of his name.
  • The article had/has far too many sentences that begin with past-participle modifiers ("Directed by Christophe Gans, a film adaptation..."). This is clunky passive voice writing, and is usually harder for readers to understand.

Plot

  • He regains it in the town, where he meets police officer... We should learn where he is in town when he wakes up.
  • Do we really need two citations for him meeting a police officer? Why do we even need one? Is this disputed information?
  • Do we really need all this dialogue from the game as citations for plot points? If there's no disputation of the events in the story, can't we remove citations?
  • .. and nurse Lisa Garland, who worked at Alchemilla. Is the past tense because she no longer works there when the player meets her? If so, we should use: "who once worked at Alchemilla".
  • The doctor is referred to as "Kaufmann", but the nurse is "Lisa" and the player character is "Harry". All characters should be referred to by their first or last name.
  • A quote from the game in a footnote reads: "That creep's sure to show up at the amusement part..." I assume this should be "park"?
  • As much as possible, put references after the period in a sentence. One ref had been put before the final two words in a sentence; this should only happen in very rare circumstances.
  • He encounters Lisa, who realizes she is dead and begins transforming... We should get some more specific description of how she transforms.

Development

  • He gave each character their own signatures Unclear -- does this mean how they write their name? Or some other meaning of that term?
  • I would vote to remove the track listing from the "Audio" section. It doesn't add much at all.
  • Why is the first mention of the "Grey Child" monster in the "Censorship" section?
  • The North American version of the game features a faceless, grey, "somewhat larger" version of them, with a "modified head". Whenever you give direct quotes, you should include a citation immediately afterward. It's also a good idea to indicate within the sentence who is saying these things. ("a faceless grey version of them, what one reviewer calls 'somewhat larger' with 'a modified head'..")

Other

  • The "Visual novel" section says: It contains a retelling of Silent Hill's story through text-based gameplay, with the player occasionally confronted with questions concerning what direction to take the character, as well as the puzzles, which are a major part of Silent Hill's gameplay. The "gameplay" section has almost no mention of the puzzles, and it should.
  • It features psychological profiling, which, depending on the player's response to questions in therapy, alters various elements. The last part here ("alters various elements") is terribly vague. Please be more specific.

Cheers. Scartol • Tok 14:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue of the sub-sections in "Gameplay", "Development", and "Adaptations" has already been fixed some time ago. About some other issues:
Plot
  • He regains it in the town, where he meets police officer...: saying where exactly in the town he regains consciousness is trivia that doesn't enhance understanding of the plot.
  • Some citations are indeed unneccessary, but some others don't harm; even though there isn't any disputation of events, it's good to have all statements sourced, in case someone considers them personal interpretation in the future.
  • [...] and nurse Lisa Garland, who worked at Alchemilla: Lisa is actually dead; what Harry sees is a manifestation of the Otherworld (some kind of hallucination, let's say), it's not really Lisa.
  • Kaufmann is referred to by his surname because he's always referred to as such in the game, he's never mentioned as "Michael".
  • That creep's sure to show up at the amusement part: yes, that's park.
  • He encounters Lisa, who realizes she is dead and begins transforming...: her head starts heavily bleeding and, as a result, her face and nurse uniform are covered in blood; she doesn't become deformed or monstrous, so maybe "transforming" is a wrong word and original research.
Other
  • Agree that more about puzzles should be mentioned in "Gameplay"; not excessive details, though, just something indicative to show what type of puzzles can be encountered (something similar can be found in Silent Hill 3's "Gameplay" section, where a puzzle related to Shakespeare is mentioned, check it out).
  • alters various elements: it is vague, but it should be; the place for details is Shattered Memories' article, here only a general overview of the game should be provided. Hula Hup (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A-class assessment

Proposing per A-class guideline. There have been tons of improvements to the article since the day it was promoted to GA status (January 20, 2011). Its version when it had just passed the GA assessment and current version. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is my detailed review:
Lead section - summarizes the main details in the article perfectly
Gameplay section - well covered
Plot section - well-written
Development section - looks fantastic, well written and concise
Adaptation section - also well-written and concise
Reception section - also looks great
I think this article looks good enough to go for an A-Class. Hope these comments helped. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment – "Reception" is still severely lacking, even by GA standards. That would be a good place to start (using the comments above) if you're aiming for A-class. For "Plot", consult a copyeditor who hasn't played the game to know if it is easy to understand for all readers. Noticed those at a quick glance, but there are probably more things to fix here (focus, flow of prose). Prime Blue (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are right about the reception section. Could you count the plot section's number of words with Word again? Last time you did it was quite big, but now it's been massively trimmed. Please give me examples of problems in focus and flow of prose, so that I'll see what I can do. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
When I used Word Count in Microsoft Word, the plot section's word count is currently 683 words. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It's just OK then. The limit is 700 words. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Although "Reception" is your top priority here, the plot section is still very "jumpy". It constantly switches between locations and characters, which makes it not very comfortable to read (even for those who did play the game). Other than that, the lead is neglecting information from "Development" (and needs to incorporate more from "Reception" once that is finished). I'll see if I can clean up "Development" some more, but otherwise, I am currently occupied with another review. Fact checks might be necessary as well, because I noticed at least one mistake in "Gameplay" (as far as I remember, the game always uses a third-person perspective). Prime Blue (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean the plot constantly switches between locations and characters? About the lead, I agree that it should contain more from the reception section, but I'm not sure about adding info from the development section; apart from the 3D graphics, which were a breakthrough, and the use of fog and darkness to conceal hardware limitations, what else development-related is worth mentioning? About the third-person perspective, you must mean the word "mostly". It says "mostly" because there are some certain points where the camera view is fixed. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I meant it just like that, literally. For example, introducing locations that are not important in the context of the story (amusement park, lighthouse, lake) needlessly complicates the synopsis – the rule of thumb is to concentrate on the plot points rather than on the cutscenes that bring them across. Look at recently promoted featured articles to know what a lead section for an article of this length should contain. You can, for example, include the fact that the game was created by a team of underdogs, how long the development took, what they tried to accomplish etc. Basically the most important points included in "Development". As for the mistake in "Gameplay", the term "third-person perspective" has little to do with camera angles: that is, regardless of the camera's placement (behind, in front of, or above the character), it is always a third-person perspective unless you see the game's environment through the eyes of the protagonist. But again, "Reception" should be your biggest concern now – you can still take care of the rest later. Prime Blue (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with all you said. I scanned the plot and you are right, I'll remove unneccessary details from it. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There are also multiple other issues.

  • There are instances where a reference is mid sentence. They should only be placed after grammatical pauses such as commas, semicolons or periods.
  • There are innapropriate External links to GameSpot and GameFAQs. These links can be construed as favoritism
  • There are statements in the lead which do not exist in the prose. The lead must be a summary of the prose and there is, for example, nothing in the prose which states the character is an everyman. The quotes are not needed around that word either. Additionally as anything in the lead should exist in the body/prose references should be moved there per WP:LEADCITE. This both cleans the lead and enforces that the prose will cover the references.
  • There are several instances where quotations are used and should not be. Quotes are only used when directly quoting a person, book, etc. In this instance I noticed character names have quotes. There should be nothing around them.
  • It should be GameTrailers, not Gametrailers.com
  • PS Greatest Hits -- PlayStation should be spelled out
  • There are instances in the Reception section such as "IGN described it as". The problem here is that a website can't describe anything, the author of the article does. In this case it should be something like "Francesca Reyes of IGN described it as"
  • Some references list .com titles, such as IGN.com - the correct title would be simply IGN. Ref #69 (TotalVideoGames.com)is another example, as they are now known as TVG (per their website)

I haven't looked over the prose very thoroughly, but those are the things I found at first glance. --Teancum (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Issues #5 and #6 have been taken care of. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Dealt with #2, #7, and the second scale of #8. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It's still going on. Hula Hup (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silent_Hill_(video_game)/Archive_2&oldid=1137186637"